July 9, 2021 — The patent dispute between FirstSpear and Crye Precision has been amicably resolved. Under the terms of the agreement, FirstSpear acquires all rights, title and interest in Crye’s U.S. patent 9,173,436, adding to FirstSpear’s expansive and established patent portfolio. The lawsuit between the companies has been dismissed and all other terms of the settlement are confidential.
“While industry conflict is never ideal, this outcome allows us to expand our technology offerings and bring even greater value to our customers and industry partners,” said FirstSpear CEO & President Scott Carver. “Combining the Crye patent with our existing technology expands our portfolio of battle tested intellectual property that provides maximum development flexibility and protection for FirstSpear and our licensees.”
For information on licensing FirstSpear Technology visit www.first-spear.tech or contact FirstSpear Technology Group at sales@first-spear.com.
Editor’s note: This statement is a guest post by FirstSpear and may leave you with questions. I know I’ve been getting a lot of questions about this over the last couple of months as it transitioned from lawsuit to practical application. I understand there will be even more questions and concerns and so does FirstSpear since it could potentially affect every soft goods manufacturer who uses laser cut technology.
I think it’s important for industry to fully understand what this means and plan on a follow-up Q&A shortly with FirstSpear, so feel free to put any questions you might want asked in the comments section of this post.
Traditionally FirstSpear has used the 6/12 style with slits cut into the fabric whereas Crye uses the more ’empty block’ method of MOLLE with substantial material gaps.
Is the dispute over the method of cutting the holes or the adherence of a backing layer, or neither?
What impact does this have against all of the other manufacturers of ‘flat’ MOLLE-cut fabric like 5.11 or BFG in an industry where design copying is common and accepted?
The patent claim is unto the garment construction not the method or process by which the garment is made.
In a practical world, what exactly is the claim of the patent? The abstract of the patent reads like it’s a laminate fabric being used for a MOLLE system, which is an insanely wide scope as neither laser cutting fabric nor fabric laminates are new innovations.
Try 10 years ago there, buddy.
my two cents on the whole thing, is Caleb patented this while First spear was still in its infancy.
Scott Carver and his crew that all jumped ship from eagle, started experimenting with laminates but were too late to patent it, and refused to pay Crye for their intellectual property.
I think this whole settlement shows First Spear is tired of paying legal fees, and the new Crye we’ve been seeing (making g3 in odd camos) is more focused in revenue, and is willing to sell there idea to a different company.
If that’s the case why wouldn’t they keep the patent? The royalties accrued every time someone laser-cuts a “molle” solution of some sort on laminates are a healthy income stream of their own.
Dont forget: Its just a settlement! Maybe FS would have won in curt and the patent would have been successfully challenged, because the court could rule that the IP is granted for smth that can not receive protection.
That’s what I’m thinking. Until someone is capable of challenging it again, it could be used as a tool to suppress competition from large procurements. They’ve already made USMC into using Tubes and 6/12 for their new carrier.
Hey First Spear, please don’t use this to fuck over the industry.
Sincerely,
Everyone